jpillian Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Just posting this article in regards to the Tailgate's periodic discussions on executive compensation. I've worked for AT&T for a few years. Met Big Ed on a few occasions, and make no mistake -- he's an impressive leader. And certainly, he has done some very good things for the company over the past nearly two decades of his leadership. But $160 million for his retirement compensation? That is absolutely ridiculous. It makes me very skeptical of the judgment of the board of directors (and obviously, pisses me off just a wee bit). I can understand if this was originally Ed Whitacre, Inc -- but it's a publicly traded company, owned by the shareholders. ------------------------ AT&T CEO Whitacre Says He Will Retire http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700762.html?hpid=moreheadlines By MICHELLE ROBERTSThe Associated Press Friday, April 27, 2007; 4:42 PM SAN ANTONIO -- Edward Whitacre Jr., the blunt-talking Texan who led AT&T Inc.'s growth from the smallest of the Baby Bells into the nation's largest telecommunications company, announced Friday he will retire as chairman and chief executive in June. ... He'll collect more than $161.6 million, including $73.8 million in deferred compensation and the $84.7 million in his pension fund in his retirement package. He'll also make more than $1 million per year for three years as a consultant for the company, according to AT&T's proxy statement. During that time, his benefits will continue and he'll get some tax help, including the payment of about $15,600 in taxes per year. But with the stock trading at a five-year high, three shareholder-driven initiatives to limit compensation and pension funds for AT&T executives failed shareholder votes Friday. Rest of article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 If you want to attract the best talent, you need to pay top wages. My guess would be that this to help attract the next top guy, not to reward the last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 If you want to attract the best talent, you need to pay top wages. My guess would be that this to help attract the next top guy, not to reward the last one. You reach a point of diminishing returns on such things. This is way, way WAY beyond that point. The traditional model of corporate governance is broken. Boards of directors have become old boys' clubs, where they all sit on each other's boards and make sure that all of them are disgustingly overpaid. When companies were smaller and only a few people owned stock, this could be tempered by a few aggressive large shareholders, but that is no longer the case. The companies are so large and the stocks are so diffused to millions of people and funds that there is no practical way of restraining greed in the boardroom, since it is not illegal. I do not know what can be done about it, but it is a real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 If you want to attract the best talent, you need to pay top wages. My guess would be that this to help attract the next top guy, not to reward the last one. sorry but the next CEO is not getting that, the only reason why he is getting such a package because he brought AT&T back from the dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 sorry but the next CEO is not getting that, the only reason why he is getting such a package because he brought AT&T back from the dead More specifically, the only reason he is getting such a package is because his friends on the Board of Directors gave it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Jealousy is an ugly thing.The shareholders elected the board. It is all relative as to whether or not he "deserves" the comp package. If you don't like it, don't invest in companies that pay huge executive salaries. If you're not a shareholder, how does it affect you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted April 28, 2007 Author Share Posted April 28, 2007 Jealousy is an ugly thing.The shareholders elected the board. It is all relative as to whether or not he "deserves" the comp package. If you don't like it, don't invest in companies that pay huge executive salaries. If you're not a shareholder, how does it affect you? I brought the issue up as an employee. The company is doing a lot of cost cutting right now. You know the ridiculous drill. Everybody is cutting down to the cuticle. We have cut jobs over the past several years (due to synergy gains from the mergers) in order to realize additional cost savings -- in order to improve income -- in order to increase stock price. Taking $160 million bite out of that income for the sake of one man seems a bit disingenuous to me. Especially when he's been getting paid millions a year, for a while -- and the next highest officer is "only" making like half a million. Don't get me wrong, I believe in free enterprise. But for a publicly traded company, this sort of stuff is disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Jealousy is an ugly thing.The shareholders elected the board. It is all relative as to whether or not he "deserves" the comp package. If you don't like it, don't invest in companies that pay huge executive salaries. If you're not a shareholder, how does it affect you? The shareholders elect the board based on a system in which the Board itself nominates the new directors it wants, it sends out ballots (using company funds) that only list those directors as possibilities, and if you don't vote, it counts as a "yes" vote. They are elected the same way that officials were elected in the old Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 More specifically, the only reason he is getting such a package is because his friends on the Board of Directors gave it to him. did you see their stock prior to when he started, he made the company billions, yes i agree they are paying way to much, but he made the company what it is today, and that is the largest communications company in the us and maybe the world he brought back At&t something no one thought would happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 did you see their stock prior to when he started, he made the company billions, yes i agree they are paying way to much, but he made the company what it is today, and that is the largest communications company in the us and maybe the worldhe brought back At&t something no one thought would happen I agree that he did a great job and should be paid well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.